The second photo literally shows what it looks like printed?
I only use AI to change the background of an original object photograph or to change the color of an object as I don’t have the time nor gazillion rolls of filament in order to show the model in different colors. AI should NOT be used to create the model itself though - totally agree.
I mean, I don’t know if I’m a real photographer, but I like your photos. I don’t see anything wrong with the approach either. A lot can be done with improvised and minimal equipment.
I’m not sure any photo is fully representative of the actual reality of the moment. There’s processing that goes on with any image capture, and no two manufactures would have the exact same results, as they have their own flavors of color processing. Even in film. I mean, I loved shooting on film and picking certain types of film because of the look it gave. It didn’t end there either, because when you’d blow up from the negatives to prints, you could further push the image. Ahh.
I don’t think good photography is about capturing reality, it’s about capturing emotion.
Why? I like that image. It evokes emotion.
I apply gloves.
No one needs to see my crippled digits.
I totally agree with you!
Thank you! I guess I’m a little bit more aware of what’s wrong because my brother and father did a lot of photography back in the day. I also had a friend who was way big into digital cameras. They were all very exacting about focus etc. I didn’t pay attention about how they got there (I was too busy building things) but could see the problems when they pointed them out. So I know the problems are there but I just don’t have the energy to do something about it. It’s the unrequited perfectionist in me that feels it necessary to point out flaws in my own stuff that I wouldn’t notice in anyone else’s 
Yes, exactly! Not to mention no two human beings see the same way. Biological differences in receptors means we can’t be sure that our brain’s interpretation is an exact match to the person next to us.
Anyways, I’m not looking for compliments (though I appreciate them nonetheless!) but rather wanted to respond to those who said they wanted unedited photos. I say that unedited photos are problematic for all the above reasons. Likewise (to bring it back to the topic) renders aren’t reality either but are problematic for other reasons.
I get that not everyone has the time or skill to figure out how to take photos nicely. Heck, I’d probably have more models out there if it weren’t for the fact that I take forever to take photos that I’m happy with. I confess I’m tempted on occasion to run a photo through AI to give me a polished look but I’d rather put out an imperfect me-made thing myself.
Exactly this! Maybe that’s why the renders and the AI assisted photos seem off to me. It’s a computer trying to replicate what makes photography an artform.
I think one can argue that a poor photo lies just as much as a good photo. Bad lighting, distracting backgrounds, poor framing, these all can take away from the presentation of your object just as much as good lighting and so on add to it. It seems to me that if regardless of which approach to photography we take it does not tell the whole truth then it makes sense to at least try and tell the most ideal version of the truth with a well framed, well lit and colour adjusted photo!
I have been far too lazy when it comes to my presentation of photos. A good photo does take a lot of work!
Who takes time to have AI images and why?
The goal of a photo is to give as much clarity as possible about the design to allow a person to understand what it is - including the word picture.
I think some getting into the minutiae of photography are overcomplicating the goal and what effective photography needs to be to meet that goal.
I think the underlying problem will mostly be those looking for clicks, likes and downloads on a platform that rewards with currency but doesn’t even have a mechanism for qualifying the design quality only the print profile being ok.
If I remix something it’s because the original didn’t quite fit what I need. On here I see remixes and very loose “originals” which are a straight up rip off of a design without the differentiation to even meet Amazon’s low bar. Why? The effort in most of the write-ups suggests it’s not just a learning pathway for design … it’s done for what most in my part of the world consider unethical business… a shortcut to get a leg up without doing the work or having the ideas.
AI images are just another way of trying to elevate and shorten the track. Unfortunately when the AI images are misrepresenting instead of informing with clarity it’s a race to the bottom. They are there because the author has a goal that may not be honest presentation.
False advertising is increasingly acceptable for increasingly unacceptable reasons.
We live in a world where girls increasingly cannot look in a mirror due to the impact of filtering on apps and delusion about their own looks. Everything is a brand. Expecting a monkey to look like the actual monkey may be a tall order?
Some people grow up in places that teach them anything is fair game until you get slapped down. Some know better and are not good people. Both need slapping down.
A 3D render from Fusion isn’t AI…. I think a render from a CAD is perfectly acceptable, provided there is a photo of an actual print as well. The STL image that you see is also a render by the way but I don’t see complaints about that. AI images are often created from a text prompt and have no connection to the model at all, or at best used another image as a guide. For example here is an AI interpretation of your bowl. No way you could get a marble effect like that in reality.
YouTube’s gotten the same way with all those fake AI stories and fake pictures not matching the story line.
That bowl looked kind of familiar to me :-)) and it’s gorgeous in that marble finish. It looks like I’ll have to brush up on my rendering skills a bit 
But honestly… while I have no problem with use of render for presentation (even though I hardly ever use it - this bowl was an exception, since I just wanted to try it out) …. your awesome presentation/render is imho pretty “on the edge”… because such a beautiful marble effect can’t be achieved in real life (afaik). I know it, You know it, but it could probably confuse some of “basic users” (I know, you’ve mentioned it already in your post).
That’s why, in “my render” I actually chose a color that matches the real PLA Metal used for printed model 90+% in the image.
I agree, and the same goes for other social media platforms. They’re not only full of nonsensical AI-generated images, but also full of made-up, nonsensical stories.
I think we can all agree on that. Where opinions seem to diverge is on how to address this, how to handle and “combat” it. Whether to rely on censorship, assuming someone else will evaluate and resolve it for me (and I can just sit in my chair and click), or whether I should resolve it myself - using my brain and at least basic common sense. Personally, I prefer the second option… I think it’s the right one/better
I’m not saying my opinion is right and everyone else is wrong… it’s just… I was born and grew up (up to the age of about 25) under a regime that was set up to “think for its citizens.” Thinking for oneself was frowned upon and sometimes even punishable. Fortunately, that regime has changed many, many years ago, and today I can use my own head, brain and my own reason, to assess what is nonsense and what isn’t. And actually, I like it and I don’t need and even I don’t want the “system” to solve it for me … But it can be different for everyone…
A render or AI image generation are not a photo of the real model.
If it isn’t the real model, it isn’t the real model. It should be that simple.
If a render makes it look better, it is a lie the print can’t match. The same is true of AI, which takes it a step further by often not being the same model you are going to print.
Too often, heavy AI or overly flattering renders are used to show an idealistic view of something that cannot be printed. If it can’t be printed, it isn’t what is advertised.
In the real world we have laws to protect consumers from fraudulent advertising, why shouldn’t people be made to demonstrate what will be printed rather than the lie?
Ah, the old “switcharoo” with the AI and pictures not matching the model. I sure missed this discussion 
It reminded me to go and check some of the previous discussions and “creators” doing it and guess what… The announcement a few months ago about AI creators being punished and “blah blah blah” didn’t work because Makerworld never pushed it forward.
Those same creators, today, have almost half a milion downloads and are even supported by Makerworld, as seen in some publications they (Makerworld) made.
The important thing for MW is exposure, and if those models gives them that, then it’s allowed and normal. Except if a common user does it and then he gets punished.
I agree that is scummy, deceiving and that users should have the “real” model shown to them so that they could print what they see and not what it could be. But the reality is no where near that.
Can’t wait to wait another year and see another topic just like this one, with the same outcome 
It is now required to have a photo of an actual print.
I have reported a non-compliant model, and bambu removed it.
One of the questions I have been contemplating asking is whether or not the cover image ( should be a pure, clean image or if it can have text and other attractors added to it. Is there a fair argument to be made that the cover image can both be honest but more attractive to encourage clicks? I am not suggesting AI or renders to be aloud in this case, but instead am wondering about the other elements one can add to the first image users see that would draw their eye enough to have them click on your project.
If MakerWorld made a change that allows for both an advertising cover image and a true printed object image presented immediately after clicking maybe that would be a good way compromise the desire for clicks but avoid out-right lying about the object.
I agree that the cover image should be that of an actual print of the model. This gives the best representation of what the customer (yes, you are getting compensated in points when they print your models) should expect. I am not against using 3D renders, or screenshots to show the model, but there should be some kind of disclaimer on the image, for example:
To me, this is clearly a screen shot, but I still indicate as such. But even in a real print image, some of my older models are painted, and that too I indicate:
I don’t think its fair to the customer to mislead them, even if they are not paying you directly, you are still benefiting from the investment they make in printing your designs. I also hate the buyer be ware crap. If you don’t show a printed representation of your design, then to me, there is a problem with the output. Besides, to upload a print profile, you must check a box that says you have printed it. If you have printed it, then why not show what the print looks like?
When it comes down to a studio, you can see from the shadows of the above picture, that my lighting is crap. my pictures are taken inside a spool box, or a table, or anywhere I have room to have a pretty spare background. if anything, a plain sheet draped up on a wall would do if the size is needed. I don’t see an excuse for not including a real picture.
lastly what I could add to this is, if you don’t know the designer, then don’t be the first to print. Read comments. If you really want to print that design and there are no comments yet, then you should view the 3D file. The web page has a built in viewer, so you can examine it closely. To be honest, this is why you can follow specific people. get to know the designers you can trust. If they have created something similar to what you are looking for, it never hurts to send them a nice DM, and ask for a request. The worst they can say is no. Quite a few of my duck designs have come from requests both in DM and in person.
I’ve seen this a lot too! It doesn’t help that Bambu makes the reporting process cumbersome, and rarely takes action. These uploaders are destroying the community. To combat this, if a project is larger than 150 grams, I’ll export the STL and view it before printing. I also scroll through the sliced layers and inspect the model before sending to printer. That way I can thoroughly inspect the end result to ensure it’s worth my time, and money.
It’s still ■■■■■■■■ we have to do this though.
I’ll give you a hint. Instead of downloading the model, in the corner of the first picture it should have a clickable button to preview the 3d model without downloading. You can check there how the polygon count is and also if it’s worth it or not.
To quote the elders… Caveat Emptor